LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION IN GIRDER BRIDGES SUBJECT

TO OVERSIZED TRUCKS

By Sami W. Tabsh1 and Muna Tabatabai2

ABSTRACT: A significant challenge facing motor carriers and engineers in this nation is the limitation of vehicle
size and weight based on pavement and bridge capacity. However, the current demands of society and industry
occasionally require a truck to carry a load that exceeds the size and weight of the legal limit. In these cases,
engineering analysis is required before a permit is issued to ensure the safety of the structures and roadways on
the vehicle’s route. A truck with a wheel gauge larger than the standard 1.83 m (6 ft) gauge requires additional
engineering effort because the wheel load girder distribution factors (GDFs) established by AASHTO cannot be
used to accurately estimate the live load in the girders. In this study, the finite-element method is used to develop
modification factors for the AASHTO flexure and shear GDFs to account for oversized trucks. The results of
the analysis showed that the use of the proposed modification factors with the specification-based GDFs can
help increase the allowable loads on slab-on-girder bridges.

INTRODUCTION frastructure design characteristics and status, traffic densities,

Truck size and weight requirements have been motivated by
concerns for national uniformity and effective highway system
administration. Over the years, new bridge design specifica-
tions and standards have been adopted by state transportation
departments to better match the sizes and weights of vehicles
permitted to operate on their highway networks. However, the
potential for premature deterioration of the infrastructure with
its underlying strain on public resources and finances contin-
ues to be a major concern. Furthermore, technology and mar-
ketplace demands have increased pressure for larger and heav-
ier vehicles, raising concern for highway safety. Regulating
truck dimensions and weights is not an easy task because the
regulation involves different groups with conflicting interests.
Shippers and carriers are interested in improving the efficiency
of their operations, whereas public agencies and interest
groups are concerned about highway safety and preserving the
infrastructure and environment. In the past two decades, many
changes in the factors affecting truck size and weight laws in
North America have developed, including growth in freight
traffic, changes in freight characteristics, global economics and
trade, economic deregulation, and enhanced motor carrier
safety programs. The signing of the North American Free
Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico in 1993 and the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1995 have also
contributed to the increase in overweight and oversized traffic
in the United States.
Federal laws now regulate truck size and weight limits by
specifying basic standards with exceptions for ‘‘grandfa-
thered’’ conditions and provisions for special permits. Federal
legal restrictions are augmented by state regulations. Over the
years, these regulations have changed many times in response
to needs and circumstances. Change continues to take place,
often without federal involvement or influence. Many differ-
ences exist between federal and state laws governing truck size
and weight. These disparities exist because of differences in
local and regional political choices that have been made re-
garding balancing economic activities, freight movements, in-
1
Assoc. Prof., School of Engrg., Am. Univ. of Sharjah, P.O. Box
26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
2
Struct. Engr., Texas Dept. of Transp., 8100 Washington Ave., P.O.
Box 1386, Houston, TX 77251-1386.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2001. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on May 24, 1999. This paper is part of the Journal
of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, January/February, 2001. 䉷ASCE,
ISSN 1084-0702/01/0001-0009–0016/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No.
21045.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 / 9
mode operations, and engineering philosophies.
TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT LAWS
Truck size and weight were first regulated by the federal
government in the 1950s when truck axle and vehicle gross
weight and width limits were established for the Interstate Sys-
tem. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 included limits on
the weight of trucks operating on the Interstate System to pro-
tect the significant federal investment in its construction. Truck
weight limits were raised in 1975 and ‘‘Bridge Formula B’’
was imposed to ensure that the vehicle load was distributed
so as to avoid excessive overstressing of bridges. The Federal-
Aid Highway Amendments of 1974 increased the allowable
maximums on the Interstate System. This legislation also re-
quired vehicles to comply with the federal bridge formula,
hich limits weights allowed on groups of axles at different
spacings (USDOT 1997).
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 also included a pro-
vision that permitted states to retain vehicle weight limits ex-
ceeding the federal limits if the states’ weight laws were in
effect in 1956. Some states have elected to retain these higher
weight limits because of the transportation savings they pro-
vide to industries vital to their economies.
The current federal law in the United States governing truck
size and weight is based on the following limits (USDOT
1997):
• Weight of 89 kN (20 kips) for single axles on the inter-
state
• Weight of 151 kN (34 kips) for tandem axes axles on the
interstate
• Application of Bridge Formula B for other axle groups,
up to the maximum of 356 kips (80 kips) for gross vehicle
weight (GVW) on the interstate
• Vehicle width of 2.59 m (8.5 ft) on the National Network
(NN)
• Minimum length of 14.6 m (48 ft) for semitrailers in a
semitrailer combination on the NN
• Minimum length of 8.53 m (28 ft) for trailers in a twin-
trailer combination on the NN.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Despite the increases in allowable truck loads and sizes es-
tablished by federal laws, not all desired truck weights and
dimensions fit within the normal legal limits. For such trucks
to operate on highways, special permits by the state DOTs are
required. Examples of typical permit trucks are mobile cranes,
carriers of oil well equipment, and commercial transporters of
mobile homes.
Restricting truck dimensions and weight on bridges to the
legal limits has some economic impact due to the resulting
redistribution of truck routes. These restrictions usually result
in oversized and overweight vehicles using longer routes, thus
causing higher vehicle operating costs, lost time, and greater
expenses for the detour route. Although individual carriers will
often have to bear these direct costs, the general public will
eventually pay for them in the form of higher prices or loss
of economic activity. These costs could be reduced by utilizing
more accurate methods for determining allowable bridge
loads, which could result in higher allowable loads for some
bridges and more direct routes.
Current structural evaluation methods for existing bridges
either ignore the influence of the gauge width of an oversized
truck on the live load distribution in bridges or estimate its
effect using simple formulas that may or may not provide rea-
sonable results. For example, the Texas DOT in its permitting
procedure considers the effect of a gauge larger than the stan-
dard 1.83 m (6 ft) by multiplying the live load effect by a
reduction factor R given by (Keating et al. 1995)
1.83 ⫹ G
R=
2G
where G = gauge width (m) (Tabatabai 1999). The resulting
reduction factor has been found to be unconservative for sev-
eral of the bridges considered in this study. More in-depth
research into the effect of larger gauge widths is therefore
required in order to ensure the safety of bridges evaluated for
permit vehicles.
The high percentage of substandard bridges in this country
and lack of financial resources for transportation infrastructure
repair and replacement require that more accurate approaches
be utilized to check the serviceability and compute the load-
carrying capacity of existing bridges. Taking into account the
actual gauge width when evaluating an existing bridge may
help increase the allowable load on some bridges subjected to
oversized vehicles without endangering substandard structures.
LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
In bridge design and evaluation specifications, the distri-
bution of truck loads on slab-on-girder bridges is usually ac-
complished using a girder distribution factor (GDF) that de-
fines the percentage of live load carried by one girder. This
factor simplifies the girder design by providing an approximate
procedure for distributing the live load in bridges without a
detailed analysis. In the National Cooperative Highway Re-
search Program (NCHRP) 12-26 method (Zokai et al. 1991),
which was adopted by AASHTO (1994a,b), the wheel load
GDF for the case of flexure in an interior girder in a simply
supported bridge subjected to one loaded lane is given by
冉 冊 冉冊 冉 冊
0.4 0.3
S S Kg
GDF = 0.1 ⫹
1.22 L Lt 3s
The corresponding expression for bridges with two or more
loaded lanes is
冉 冊 冉冊 冉 冊
0.6 0.2
S S Kg
GDF = 0.15 ⫹
0.915 L Lt 3s
where S = girder spacing (m); L = span length (m); and ts =
slab thickness (m). The longitudinal stiffness parameter Kg ac-
counts for the effect of the girder stiffness on the live load
distribution characteristics of the bridge and is defined as
Kg = n(I ⫹ Ae 2g )
10 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
where n = modular ratio between the girder and slab; I =
moment of inertia of the girder (m4); A = cross-sectional area
of the girder (m2); and eg = distance from the geometric center
of the girder to the middepth of the slab (m).
The shear GDF for an interior girder with one loaded lane
can be obtained from the following equation (Zokai et al.
1991):
S
GDF = 0.6 ⫹ (5)
4.58
The corresponding expression for a bridge with two or more
loaded lanes is
冉 冊
2
S S
GDF = 0.4 ⫹ ⫺ (6)
1.83 7.63
The GDF expressions in (2)–(6) have been developed based
on an HS20-44 truck configuration that has a gauge width
equal to 1.83 m (6 ft). They also include multiple presence
factors based on the AASHTO standard bridge design speci-
fications (AASHTO 1996).
For the case of an exterior girder subjected to one loaded
lane, the lever rule is used. For the corresponding case with
two or more loaded lanes, the following equation is used to
(1) determine the GDF for the exterior girders (GDF)Ext in terms
of the GDF for the interior girder (GDF)Int :
(GDF)Ext = e *(GDF)Int (7)
where e * = (2.14 ⫹ de )/2.78 for the case of flexure and (1.83
⫹ de )/3.05 for the case of shear, in which de is the edge dis-
tance of traffic lanes (m), defined as the distance between the
center of the outside roadway stringer web to the edge of the
exterior lane.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY
The objectives of this study are to (1) investigate the effects
of truck configuration on the live load distribution of slab-on-
girder bridges; and (2) develop modification factors for the
specification-based GDFs for such bridges subjected to over-
sized vehicles with a gauge larger than 1.83 m (6 ft). The study
is limited to simple span bridges consisting of a concrete slab
on several composite steel girders. Both moment at midspan
and shear at the support are considered in the study. Three
different span lengths (14.6, 29.3, and 43.9 m) and girder spac-
ings (1.22, 3.05, and 3.66 m) are examined. The applied truck
load includes four different overweight trucks with a range of
wheelbases and gauge widths.
This study focuses on the distribution of live load to interior
girders due to one loaded traffic lane. Exterior girders are not
treated because the lever rule and the pile loading expression
are normally used to compute the GDF for such girders. Such
approaches can easily account for the effect of a wide truck
on the live load distribution of exterior girders. A simple
method is suggested for determining the live load effect for
0.1
the case of an oversized truck mixing with traffic (i.e., an
(2) oversized truck side by side with standard design trucks). All
bridges are analyzed in the linearly elastic range using the
finite-element software ALGOR (ALGOR 1998). It should be
noted that the analysis does not consider the dynamic effect
0.1 of moving vehicles because oversized trucks often move at
creep speeds. However, the results of the analysis would still
(3)
be valid for trucks driving at normal speeds by using the dy-
namic amplification factors that are included in bridge design
specifications.
TRUCK MODELS
Four overweight, oversized truck models are considered in
(4) this study. They include the AASHTO HS20-44 design truck,
Pennsylvania DOT’s (PennDOT’s) P-82 permit truck
(PennDOT 1993), Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code’s
(OHBDC’s) load level 3 truck (OHBDC 1992), and HTL-57
notional truck (FHWA 1994). The four trucks differ from each
other in the number of axles, axle spacing, gross weight, and
axle weight. With the exception of the HS20-44 truck, these
vehicles represent trucks that would normally require a permit
for routes including bridge crossings. The HS20-44 truck is
8.6 m long, weighs 320 kN (72 kips), and consists of three
axles that are spaced at 4.27 m (14 ft). The P-82 permit truck
has a wheelbase of 17 m and includes eight axles with a total
weight equal to 907 kN (204 kips). The OHBDC truck has
five axles with a wheelbase equal to 18 m and a GVW of 740
kN (166 kips). Finally, the HTL-57 truck is 15.3 m long and
includes six axles with a gross weight of 505 kN (114 kips).
The configurations of the considered trucks are shown in Fig.
1. For the most critical truck, wheel gauges of 1.83, 2.44, 3.05,
and 3.66 m (6, 8, 10, and 12 ft) are considered in the live load
analysis, as shown in Fig. 2.
FINITE-ELEMENT MODELING
The finite-element method is used to investigate the consid-
ered slab-on-girder bridges under the application of oversized
trucks. All bridges are analyzed in this study in the linearly
elastic range. Three elements are used to model the geometry
of each steel girder. The top and bottom steel flanges are mod-
eled using two-node beam elements with six degrees of free-
dom at each node. The geometric and stiffness properties of
FIG. 1. Truck Configurations Considered in Study
FIG. 2. Gauge Widths Considered in Study
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 / 11
the beam elements are lumped at the centroid of the flanges.
The steel web of the bridge stringers is modeled by four-node
rectangular shell elements with six degrees of freedom per
node. The shell elements account for both membrane and
bending stiffnesses, and they consider in- and out-of-plane
bending. The deck slab is also modeled using thin four-node
rectangular shell elements. The diaphragms consist of angle
cross frames and are modeled by 3D beam elements. Rigid
3D beam elements are used to connect the centroids of the top
flange steel beam elements to the centroids of the deck slab
elements directly above them. These elements are used in or-
der to satisfy composite behavior and prevent relative defor-
mation between the top flange of the stringers and the concrete
slab. Fig. 3 shows a sketch of the finite-element model of a
single girder. Fig. 4 shows discretization of a 29.3 m (96 ft)
long bridge superstructure consisting of five girders that are
spaced at 2.44 m (8 ft) by finite elements.
The GDF for flexure in a simply supported bridge can be
obtained by longitudinally positioning a truck on the bridge
so that the bending moment in the structure is maximized at
midspan. This can be accomplished with the use of influence
lines. The transverse position of the truck can be obtained by
maximizing the flexural stress in the bottom flange of the crit-
ical girder by varying the transverse truck position and using
influence lines. Once the correct transverse truck position is
determined, the GDF for flexure can be computed from (Bis-
hara et al. 1993)
2N␥ fj
冘
GDF = n (8)
fi
i=1
where f j = extreme bottom flange stress of the critical beam;
f i = extreme bottom flange stress of beam i; ␥ = multiple truck
FIG. 3. Discretization of Girder by Finite Elements
FIG. 4. Finite-Element Model of Simply Supported Bridge with
Five Girders
presence factor; n = number of beams; and N = number of
trucks on the bridge. This expression is based on the definition
of the GDF with the addition of a multiple-presence factor and
noting that in the linearly elastic range the moment in a mem-
ber is proportional to the stress.
For the case of shear, a truck is positioned longitudinally
on the bridge such that maximum reaction is obtained in the
structure at the support. The transverse truck position can be
determined by maximizing the reaction of the critical girder
by varying the transverse truck position and using influence
lines. Once the correct transverse truck position is selected,
the GDF for shear can be computed from
2N␥rj
m (48, 96, and 144 ft). For the 2.4 m (8 ft) girder spacing,
the rolled steel beam cross section is W840⫻193 (W33⫻130)
for the 14.6 m (48 ft) span, W920⫻446 (W36⫻300) for the
29.3 m (96 ft) span, and W1120⫻498 (W44⫻335) for the 43.9
m (144 ft) span. For each span length, the web depth of the
rolled steel beam used with the 2.4 m (8 ft) girder spacing is
decreased by 300 mm (12 in.) for the 1.2 m (4 ft) girder spac-
ing and increased by 300 mm (12 in.) for the 3.6 m (12 ft)
girder spacing. The deck slab overhang is taken to be equal
to half the girder spacing. A summary of the superstructure
geometry for the considered bridges is shown in Table 1. The
bridge configurations chosen reflect a reasonable range of pa-
rameters used in slab-on-girder bridges.

冘
GDF = n (9)
CRITICAL PARAMETERS
ri
i=1 In this section, the critical interior girder and critical truck
where rj = maximum reaction of the critical girder under con- configuration for live load distribution in simply supported,
sideration; and ri = larger reaction of girder i at the support. slab-on-girder bridges are determined. To compute the GDF
in the considered bridges subjected to one truck, the vehicle
is placed on each bridge such that the load effect in the girders
APPROACH
is maximized. The longitudinal truck position for maximum
The approach used in this study to determine the effect of flexure at midspan or maximum shear at the support can be
the gauge width G on the live load distribution in slab-on- easily determined using influence lines for simply supported
girder bridges consists of deriving a modification factor that beams. The critical transverse location of the truck can be
is applied to the GDFs in the bridge design specifications found by examining the stress in the bottom flange of each
steel girder for the case of flexure, or the support reaction of
(GDF)G = ␣(GDF) (10) each steel girder for the case of shear, for different transverse
where (GDF)G = GDF for a gauge wider than 1.83 m (6 ft); truck positions X, where X is defined in Fig. 6. Note that when
␣ = gauge modification factor that accounts for the effect of the left wheel of a truck is on the deck overhang, the dimen-
a wide gauge on live load distribution; and GDF = GDF in sion X is negative.
the design specification, which is based on a 1.83 m (6 ft)
gauge. In general, the expression of ␣ will be a function of Critical Interior Girder
the flexural or shear load effect, truck configuration, and In all cases considered, the first interior girder was found to
bridge geometry. be the most critical interior girder in both flexure and shear.
Fig. 7 shows the flexural GDF versus the transverse truck po-
BRIDGES CONSIDERED sition for the interior girders of the 29.3 m (96 ft) long bridge
Three different composite steel bridge superstructures are
TABLE 1. Parameters of Bridge Geometry
considered. One superstructure is composed of a 150 mm (6
in.) thick slab on seven steel beams spaced at 1.22 m (4 ft), Span Girder Slab Flange Flange Web Web
another consists of a 200 mm (8 in.) thick slab on five steel length spacing thickness thickness width thickness depth
beams spaced at 2.44 m (8 ft), and a third includes a 250 mm (m) (m) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(10 in.) thick slab on four steel beams spaced at 3.66 m (12 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
ft), as shown in Fig. 5. For each bridge layout, three different 14.6 1.22 150 22 292 15 497
simple span lengths are chosen, including 14.6, 29.3, and 43.9 14.6 2.44 200 22 292 15 797
14.6 3.66 250 22 292 15 1,097
29.3 1.22 150 43 423 24 548
29.3 2.44 200 43 423 24 848
29.3 3.66 250 43 423 24 1,148
43.9 1.22 150 45 405 26 728
43.9 2.44 200 45 405 26 1,028
43.9 3.66 250 45 405 26 1,328

FIG. 5. Bridge Layouts Considered in Study FIG. 6. Definition of Distance X

12 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001

 ence line diagrams for the girders are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
For the same reason, the bridge with the 3.66 m (12 ft) girder
spacing is not considered because it only has four girders, of
which the two interior girders are similar. Although the results
are shown for bridges subjected to a single HS20 truck with
a gauge width of 1.83 m (6 ft), the first interior girder was
consistently the most heavily loaded girder when the bridges
were subjected to other truck configurations and different
gauge widths. Figs. 7 and 8 also indicate that the NCHRP
12-26 factors are a better predictor of the GDF for flexure,
whereas the factors in the AASHTO standard specifications
are a better predictor of the GDF for shear for the bridge
configurations considered in this study.

Critical Truck Configuration

The four different truck types that are used for evaluating
the live load distribution in the bridges considered are the
HS20, OHBDC, PennDOT P-82, and HTL-57. The axle spac-
ings and weight distribution of the four trucks are shown in
Fig. 1, and the gauge for each is taken equal to 1.83 m (6 ft).
Each of the trucks is positioned on the bridges such that the
moment in the first interior girder is maximized at midspan or
shear in the same girder is maximized at the support. Fig. 9
presents the flexural GDF results for the 29.3 m (96 ft) long
bridge with 1.22 m (4 ft) and 3.66 m (12 ft) girder spacings.
FIG. 7. Determination of Critical Interior Girder in Flexure The corresponding GDF results for shear in the same bridges
are shown in Fig. 10. Figs. 9 and 10 show that the HS20 truck
configuration produces the largest GDF for both flexure and
shear. Furthermore, the HS20 truck is more critical than the
other vehicles for shear than for flexure. This result is expected
because the HS20 truck has the fewest axles and the shortest
wheelbase among the four considered trucks. Structural anal-
ysis of the bridges subjected to trucks having gauges other
than 1.83 m produced the same conclusions. The results also
indicate that the NCHRP 12-26 factors can predict the GDF
for flexure better than the factors included in the AASHTO
standard specifications. The opposite is true for the case of
shear for the bridge configurations considered.

FIG. 8. Determination of Critical Interior Girder in Shear

with 1.22 m (4 ft) and 2.44 m (8 ft) girder spacings. The

corresponding results for the shear GDF are shown in Fig. 8.
Also shown in Figs. 7 and 8 are the GDFs that are based on
the AASHTO standard specifications (AASHTO 1996) and the
NCHRP 12-26 study (Zokai et al. 1991). The girder numbering
scheme is shown in Fig. 5. Note that the standard AASHTO
GDF shown for shear is a composite factor because the axles
near the support have a different GDF than the axles lo-
cated away from the support. Because of the symmetry of
the bridge superstructure, interior girders equally spaced from
the bridge centerline have GDF influence lines that are mirror FIG. 9. Determination of Critical Truck Configuration for Case
images of each other. Therefore, only unique transverse influ- of Flexure

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 / 13

 冋 册
[(G⫺1.83)/1.22]
2.95 ⫹ 3.33 兹S
␣M = (11)
6.14 ⫹ S
The corresponding gauge reduction factor for shear ␣V based
on the results presented in Table 3 may be given by the fol-
lowing expression:
␣V = [0.13S 2 ⫺ 0.66S ⫹ 1.54][(G⫺1.83)/1.22] (12)
where S = girder spacing (m); and G = gauge width (m). Note
that the expressions of the gauge reduction factors ␣M and ␣V
yield values equal to unity for the case of a standard truck
with gauge equal 1.83 m (6 ft), so that the specification-based
GDFs are not modified. Eqs. (11) and (12) can be used in
conjunction with (10) to determine the effect of an oversized
gauge on the GDFs. Because the expressions of ␣M and ␣V
were derived based solely on the finite-element results, they
can be used with any specification-based GDF, including the
AASHTO standard specifications (AASHTO 1996), AASHTO
LRFD (AASHTO 1994b), OHBDC (1991), and others.
The accuracy of the developed gauge modifications factors
is checked in Figs. 12 and 13. Fig. 12 shows the ratio of the
flexural gauge modification factor obtained by (11), ␣Eq , to the
corresponding factor obtained from the finite-element method
␣FEM for the considered bridges. The corresponding results for

FIG. 10. Determination of Critical Truck Configuration for

Case of Shear

GAUGE MODIFICATION FACTORS

Nine simply supported bridges with spans equal to 14.6,
29.3, and 43.9 m (48, 96, 144 ft) and girder spacings consist-
ing of 1.22, 2.44, and 3.66 m (4, 8, and 12 ft) are analyzed.
The applied loading consists of a single HS20 truck with 1.83,
2.44, 3.05, and 3.66 m gauge widths. Fig. 11 presents typical
results for the flexural and shear GDF in the first interior girder
of a 29.3-m-long bridge with five girders spaced at 2.44 m (8
ft). Also shown in Fig. 11 are the GDF values based on the
AASHTO standard specifications and NCHRP 12-26 study.
The results indicate that the GDF decreases with an increase
in gauge. Furthermore, the transverse truck position for max-
imum GDF X is different for the various gauge widths con-
sidered. A summary of the finite-element analysis for all of
the considered bridges in flexure and in shear are shown in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Also included in these tables are
the gauge modification factors based on the finite-element
method ␣FEM , defined as the ratio of the GDF for a vehicle
with gauge G to the GDF for a vehicle with gauge equal to
1.83 m (6 ft).
The finite-element results show that an increase in the gauge
from 1.83 to 3.66 m can lead to a reduction of up to 19% in
the GDF value for flexure. The decrease in the GDF for shear
when the gauge increases from 1.83 to 3.66 m can be as high
as 35%. Furthermore, the reduction in the GDF is mainly a
function of the gauge width and girder spacing. The span
length has a minor effect on the modified GDF due to a change
in the gauge width. For the case of flexure, the gauge of a
vehicle influences the live load distribution in bridges with
small girder spacings more than in bridges with large girder
spacings. On the other hand, for the case of shear, bridges with
moderate and large girder spacings are affected by a change
in gauge width more than bridges with small girder spacings.
Based on the results of the finite-element analyses in Table 2,
a simple formula for the flexural gauge modification factor ␣M FIG. 11. Effect of Gauge on GDF for Bridge with 2.44 m (8 ft)
is suggested Girder Spacing

14 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001

 TABLE 2. Results of Finite-Element Analysis for Flexure
Span length Girder spacing Gauge width
(m) (m) (m) GDF (␣)FEM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
14.6 1.22 1.83 0.485 1.000
2.44 0.450 0.928
3.05 0.423 0.872
2.44 1.83 0.688 1.000
2.44 0.647 0.943
3.05 0.606 0.883
3.66 1.83 0.915 1.000
2.44 0.874 0.955
3.05 0.827 0.904
29.3 1.22 1.83 0.464 1.000
2.44 0.439 0.946
3.05 0.415 0.894
2.44 1.83 0.601 1.000
2.44 0.589 0.980
3.05 0.575 0.957
3.66 1.83 0.751 1.000
2.44 0.734 0.977
3.05 0.709 0.944
43.9 1.22 1.83 0.460 1.000
2.44 0.434 0.943
3.05 0.412 0.896
2.44 1.83 0.582 1.000
2.44 0.578 0.993
3.05 0.574 0.986
3.66 1.83 0.682 1.000
2.44 0.669 0.981
3.05 0.655 0.960

TABLE 3. Results of Finite-Element Analysis for Shear

Span length Girder spacing Gauge width
(m) (m) (m) GDF (␣)FEM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
14.6 1.22 1.83 0.716 1.000
2.44 0.688 0.961
3.05 0.670 0.936
2.44 1.83 1.200 1.000
2.44 1.004 0.837
3.05 0.813 0.678
3.66 1.83 1.475 1.000
2.44 1.362 0.923
3.05 1.229 0.833
29.3 1.22 1.83 0.712 1.000
2.44 0.682 0.958
3.05 0.666 0.935
FIG. 12. Accuracy of Developed Gauge Modification Factor
2.44 1.83 1.185 1.000
for Flexure
2.44 0.994 0.839
3.05 0.817 0.689
3.66 1.83 1.457 1.000
2.44 1.347 0.925 with traffic (i.e., an oversized truck traveling side by side with
3.05 1.218 0.836 standard trucks), a simple approach is suggested. In this case,
43.9 1.22 1.83 0.700 1.000 the live load moment in an interior girder can be determined
2.44 0.663 0.947 by multiplying the oversized truck effect by the developed
3.05 0.647 0.924 GDF for one lane of loading and then adding to it the product
2.44 1.83 1.166 1.000
2.44 0.981 0.841
of the standard truck effect and the difference between the
3.05 0.806 0.691 specification-based GDF expressions for multiple and one lane
3.66 1.83 1.436 1.000 of loading. For the case of flexure in an interior girder, the
2.44 1.329 0.925 load effect in an interior girder M can be computed from

冉 冊
3.05 1.202 0.837
1
M = ␣M (GDF)1-lane M0-T
2

the case of shear are presented in Fig. 13. The results indicate
that the proposed approximate equations of the gauge modi-
fication factor yield values that are comparable in accuracy
with the finite-element method.
TREATMENT OF MULTIPLE LOADED LANES
The developed gauge modification factors are intended to
be used in conjunction with the GDF of bridges subjected to
one loaded lane. For the case of an oversized truck mixing
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 / 15
冉 冊
1
⫹ [(GDF)n-lanes ⫺ (GDF)1-lane] MS-T
2 (13)
where ␣M = gauge modification factor for flexure, obtained
from (11); (GDF)1-lane = GDF for flexure due to one loaded
lane; MO-T = moment due to an oversized truck with gauge
larger than 1.83 m (6 ft); (GDF)n-lanes = GDF for flexure due
to multiple loaded lanes (n ⱖ 2); and MS-T = moment due to
a standard or design truck with gauge equal to 1.83 m (6 ft).

FIG. 13. Accuracy of Developed Gauge Modification Factor
for Shear
The moments used in (13) reflect the load effect of one line
of wheels. The GDF values used should therefore correspond
to one line of wheels instead of the entire truck load. An equa-
tion similar to (13) can be derived for the case of shear in an
interior girder subjected to multiple loaded lanes.
16 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions
are relevant for slab-on-girder bridges:
• The HS20-44 truck has the most critical GDF among the
four overweight trucks that were considered in the study.
• The first interior girder receives the largest percentage of
live load among the interior girders of the nine bridges
considered. The transverse truck position for maximum
load effect in the critical interior girder is usually different
for shear than for moment.
• GDFs for interior girders in slab-on-girder bridges are
lower for oversized trucks than for standard trucks with
1.83 m (6 ft) gauge width.
• The reduction in the GDF for interior girders due to a
vehicle with a large gauge is different for flexure than for
shear. Gauge width affects shear due to live load more
than it affects flexure.
• Significant interaction exists between gauge width and
girder spacing when considering the effect of an oversized
truck on the live load distribution in bridges. The span
length, on the other hand, has a minor effect on the re-
duction in live load due to an increase in gauge.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
ALGOR, reference manual. (1998). ALGOR Corp., Pittsburgh.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1994a). Guide specifications for distribution of loads for
highway bridges, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1994b). LRFD bridge design specifications, 1st Ed.,
Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1996). Standard specifications for highway bridges, 16th
Ed., Washington, D.C.
Bishara, A. G., Liu, M. C., and El-Ali, N. D. (1993). ‘‘Wheel load dis-
tribution on simply supported skew I-beam composite bridges.’’ J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 119(2), 399–419.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1994). LRFD design of high-
way bridges training course, Vol. 1, Prepared by Modjeski and Masters,
Inc., Washington, D.C., Aug.
Keating, P. B., Litchfield, S. C., and Zhou, M. (1995). ‘‘Overweight per-
mit rules.’’ Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Tex., June.
Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC). (1991). Bridge code,
3rd Ed., Ministry of Transportation, Quality and Standards Division,
Downsview, Ont., Canada.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). (1993). Design
manual, Part 4—Structures, Vol. 1, PDT-Publ. No. 15, August.
Tabatabai, M. (1999). ‘‘Effect of oversized and overweight trucks on live
load distribution in girder bridges.’’ MS thesis, Dept. of Civ. and Envir.
Engrg., University of Houston, Houston, May.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). (1997). Comprehensive
truck size and weight study—Issues and background, Vol. II, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., June.
Zokai, T., Osterkamp, T. A., and Imbsen, R. A. (1991). ‘‘Distribution of
wheel loads on highway bridges.’’ Final Rep., NCHRP 12-26, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, D.C.